We need to find help

I did not mean to create such a huge fuss. My patients do very well from my use of modern advances in homoeopathic method and philosophy and I am sure do not care too much that people are arguing about its validity. They get well, they are happy, I am happy.

Originally posted by David Johnson [QUOTE=Brisbanehomoeopath] Yes, I agree 100%.  I'd also like to share my experience, but not if the starting point is "you need to prove your experience to my satisfaction, and it needs to conform with I already believe to be true".  That's very different than "I'm interested in learning about your experience and then weighing the relative merits for my patients, irrespective of whether it conforms with I already believe to be true".

Well, I don't know what you expect in a homeopathic forum.
We have Hundreds of Thousands homeopaths worldwide practicing any shade of homeopathy. With any shade I mean that everybody, regardless of the school one follows, has his individual learning and experience with the modality. Some are close to their own school, some are experimenting with their patients.

There's no set of criteria which makes us distinguish fake from truth.

Saying these words has nothing to do with the two of you. I am sure that you are very serious with what you're practicing. And I am sure even more that you are intending to serve the homeopathic community and all patients with your generous share of your experiences (which, by the way, I appreciate very well!!!).

The reason why I am so much critical with my posts has nothing to do with any person in this forum. I only try to watch the situation from 'above', from bird's-eye view.

To understand me better: Maybe you've been more lucky than I've been. I have spent a lot of money and a lot of time for bad teachers of homeopathy and their lectures. They've been pretty good in their rhetorics, pretty good in convincing us students to believe in 'their' method of homeopathy. They called it classical homeopathy, but too late I realized that it was not so. As a student, don't you trust in your teachers? I always did...

... In the beginning.

Now, when I realized that the homeopathy which I had learned, didn't present the results, which have been promised - when I realized that the cases, which I have seen during my studies were 'incomplete', then I became suspicious.

Only the step back to the original and basic literature after the official training brought an obvious change.

And this is what happens here: I read very nice successful cases. But I do not read, how the experiences with such cases are getting interwoven with the modality of homeopathy!

If someone has individual experiences with a certain approach, with certain patients and more or less homeopathic, more or less successful: one should not be proud with what has been achieved and then to spread it to the world. This is egoistic, not comprehensible.

What I see essential in the publishing of cases (which is necessary and the basis of a further development of homeopathy!), is the acurate analysis and how the process confirms or corrects the laws which we say are essential to homeopathy.

It is so funny: regardless whether we practice the Sankaran-method, homeopathy by Sehgal, treatment as suggested by Peter Chappell, Welte's implementation of colours or handwriting, prescribing this for that, homeopathy by X and by Y: always homeopaths are successful with what they do.

This can either mean that it doesn't matter what we do with any remedy on any patient, just let us play with the remedies, there will be a successful result - or we betray ourselves.

Finally, this is the reason why I keep on complaining: if Doctores Sankaran, Sehgal, ...., make new experiences and findings, how wonderful this is for the benefit of mankind!!!

But if we talk homeopathy, these findings, based on well recorded observed experiences, need not be published within that system in order to explain the new observations in the right context. These findings need to be analyzed in the sense of how they fit into the original and approved teachings of homeopathy and how they prove them right or wrong!!!
They need to grow within homeopathy, not on top. We don't need more tumours and more exogenic growth. We need more growth of pure 'tissue'.

Tumours can grow pretty well, it is a successful tissue. But this doesn't mean that they are beneficial for the body.

Again: do we talk homeopathy or don't we?

AND THIS COMES FROM DEEP WTHIN MY HEART: all my admiration goes to our forum mates who are brave enough to share with us their experiences and cases. Thank you for all your generostiy and goodwill. Only - let us please use it more efficiently.
Siegfried

I hate deception and presenting things in terms that were established for 200 years while meaning something entirely different is such deception. It is trying to use Hahnemann as the horse to draw one's personal cart, while that cart is often simply little more than a common dung-spreader - like mixopathy, organ therapy and drainage therapy, to give a few examples.KAVARAJ

Once I got out of college, I started working with the Repertory because of
prior familiarity with it and I started repertorizing cases mechanically. I
was trying to use the characteristic and peculiar symptoms mainly because
there are less remedies in these rubrics which made repertory work easier. I
would choose a few characteristic symptoms, look at the relevant rubrics in
the Repertory and prescribe the medicine which was common to them. In some
cases it worked, but in many it failed.(Sankaran)

 

Sigi,

you wrote:

There's no set of criteria which makes us distinguish fake from truth.

Yes there is. It is called the Organon of Rational Medicine.

All it requires is to adhere to these criteria. Those that ride, trot or gallop their personal hobby horse should take heed. But i will not hold my breath to wait for it. I will simply expose it.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Sigi,

so true. And ignoring what i wrote in my last post. The more i hear about him, the more i am inclined to dismiss him as an irrelevant system builder.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Originally posted by Humble Originally posted by Kaviraj Sigi, you wrote: There's no set of criteria which makes us distinguish fake from truth. Yes there is. It is called the Organon of Rational Medicine. Dear Kaviraj, this means that homeopathy, indeed, is static forever and it will remain like this for ever. I find that a little too absolute. Hahnemann discovered the Natural Laws which govern the use of medicine - quite by accident, admittedly, when he translated Cullen's MM. He then proceded to work out why and how and as he went along and discovered more, he refined his understanding accordingly. Since he showed us understanding is not static, but follows Natural Laws - which are static, because otherwise they would not be Laws - he did give us a complete system. That does not preclude the development of greater understanding. Thus homoeopathy follows laws that are static and unchanged, but it does not say that anything we understand is static.  Well, Dr. Hahnemann got very far. But I don't believe that he finally had arrived. Possibly not in his understanding. Had he lived longer, he might have refined that understanding more. But he could never change the Laws. Within the increasing experiences there is still potential for a further development in homeopathy. Understanding is always subject to further development. A good number of the new methods labelled as homeopathy can be exposed with the Organon as reference and proved wrong (or proved being non-homeopathic). But I still see the chance for a development of homeopathy with the finding of new or refined aspects adding to it. That again pertains to understanding and not to its eternally fixed laws. And if one can accept this, then we lack the set of criteria necessary. I think you confuse here still the difference between laws and our understanding of them. The laws are a set of criteria necessary for homoeopathy to work. Thus we DO HAVE A SET OF CRITERIA. Gurus selling their bestseller books are not of help bec they are not objectively incorporating their thoughts into the existing system. Agreed. It would reduce all their work to the size it deserves. And this wouldn't sell as it does today. It wouldn't make them as famous as it does today. Fake or truth? Let's have a look at the Journal 'Homeopathy 4 Everyone', the free monthly journal of the hpathy portal: We get a mass of artcles unfiltered. And there is much worthless material which simply prevents us from learning what we need for our work. It throws us into a sea of words with no "land ahoy!" Agreed also. Therefore, it would be wise if the Journal would put the set of criteria on top and at the beginning and admonish the student and professional alike to scrutinise the articles on their adherence to that set of criteria and thus help them to make an informed choice on what to accept and reject. And the readers who want to learn, those who are lost within the masses of unfiltered opinions, they can't tell what they should believe and what not. Therefore, it is time for authors and editors to do their homework and to begin to work in a scientific way. That is another way of arriving at the same choice of acceptance and rejection. However, how many of these authors know the criteria as set out in the Organon? That remains the big question. It is only in the application of Natural Laws when homeopathy can work. Indeed, and here you mention the set of criteria yourself. Individual laws and creations won't be of help in the long run, unless they accidentally apply them. Correct, and therefore they must follow those Natural Laws as set out in the Organon. Siegfried

The way i discovered agro-homoeopathy was from studying the Organon's Natural Laws and extrapolating them to the life of plants. When i wrote my book on the subject, i began with quoting those Laws and principles, to show i was NOT making my individual laws and speculating it MIGHT work like my fancy dictated. I firmly based it on the teachings of Hahnemann and Kent, and not presenting my personal hobby horse. You know the interview Alan did with me, wherein I first of all explained the idea from the point of view of the Laws. Today, I have, like Hahnemann, refined my understanding, without deviationg from those Laws. Thus I am able to present much more as a result.
 These Laws are completely static - to our luck, because otherwise we would not be able to develop any understanding. The set of criteria remains the same.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Hi Elena,

To understand the Organon, one has to read it from start to finish. Cherry-picking a few aphorisms here and there to promote sloppy work will simply not do.

Hahnemann has written very clear-cut instructions on how to arrive at the remedy selection. He begins with this already in Par3.

3.        In order for the physician to be able to cure, he needs to know the following:
•    What it is that is curable in disease – knowledge of disease; the indication.
•    What is curative in medicines – knowledge of the medicinal powers.
•    What is the appropriate remedy adapted to the case – choice of the remedy.
•    What are the principles that guide him in his choice – the medicine indicated.
•    What is the exact mode of preparation and quantity – the proper dose.
•    When it is necessary to repeat – the prognosis.
•    If he is also able to remove that which is an obstacle to cure, such as bad habits and the like, he is a true practitioner of the healing art.

This is a summary of the necessary knowledge to arrive at the selection of a remedy.

The details are also summarised.

5.        In every case of disease the particulars of the exiting cause of an acute disease are of importance. In chronic cases, the most significant points in the history enable the physician to discover its fundamental cause. Fundamental causes are generally due to a chronic miasma. In these in-vestigations the following points need due consideration:
•    Physical constitution.
•    The character, both moral and intellectual.
•    Occupation – the work he does.
•    Environment – the place and situation.
•    The way of life and habits.
•    Social and domestic relation.
•    Age and sex.

6.        Unprejudiced observation is directed at the changes in health of the mind, emotions and body. These are clearly visible or revealed by further examination. He notices only the deviation of health. The sensations of the patient, those noticed by his relatives and the observations of the physician are all that needs to be noted. All these perceptible signs present the disease in its whole extent and form a true picture of the disease.

7.        In disease, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms. It follows that it is by these symptoms alone that the disease points to the medicine indicated to remove it. The totality of symptoms – being the outwardly reflected picture of the internal disease – must be the principal and sole means the disease can use to indicate what remedy it requires. Therefore, the totality of symptoms is the only thing the physician needs to discover and note down. Then he must remove it by means of his Art, to enable cure and return to health.

15.    The affections of the defence mechanism and the totality of symptoms notable to the senses of patient and doctor constitute a whole. They are one and the same.

18.    Besides the totality of symptoms, nothing can be discovered in diseases. Thus, the sum of all symptoms and conditions in each individual case must be the sole indication to the choice of the remedy.

25.    Pure experience teaches that actually that medicine which has shown its power of producing the greatest number of symptoms similar to the disease does also remove rapidly and permanently that totality of symptoms of the disease. All medicines cure those diseases whose symptoms most closely resemble their own.

43.    The allopathic non-method of treatment utilises many things against disease; mostly of the wrong kind (alloea). It has ruled for ages in different forms called systems. Each of these systems following each other from time to time and differing greatly amongst each other honoured itself with the name of ‘rational medicine’, today called ‘evidence-based’. In each of these systems, the builders imagined they could penetrate in the inner life of the healthy and the sick, to enable clear recognition of the state of health and to prescribe which noxious matter must be banished. This was and still is according to empty assumptions and arbitrary suppositions, without any regard to honesty or the voice of experience.

56.    The only possible mode of treatment employs for the totality of symptoms a medicine capable of producing the same in the healthy. Employed in suitable doses it is the only efficacious method, wherein the dynamic disease is neutralised by an equally dynamic medicinal power.

57.    The diseases of mankind consist in reality of groups of certain symptoms. They can be turned to health by those medicines capable of producing similar morbid symptoms. The idea of cure is comprised in the following three points.
•    How is the physician to determine what he needs to know to cure the disease?
•    How is he to obtain knowledge of the pathogenic power of medicines?
•    What is the best method of using these medicines to cure disease?

58.    Diseases are of two different kinds:
•    The rapid processes, which finish quickly, always in moderate time. These are the acute diseases with often violent and quick beginnings, a rapid course and speedy termination in either health or death.
•    Diseases of such character with small beginnings, gradual deviation from health, which progresses indefinitely until the organism is destroyed. These are termed chronic diseases and are of miasmatic or suppressive origin, in the latter case complicated with added drug-disease.

In between a paragraph for David

59.    The exiting causes of acute diseases are injurious influences. Excess or lack of food, drink or sleep; strong physical impressions, such as sunstroke or chill, strain, irritation, emotions and such like are the causes for febrile conditions, colds, flue etc. They are really transient explosions of psora, returning to the dormant stage if the acute disease is not too violent in character. They may also be caused by periodically returning contagious agents, which affect only the susceptible. Sometimes these epidemic causes are contagious when the conditions of density and susceptibility of the population are met. The condition of density causes stress, which in turn equals susceptibility. From these conditions, febrile conditions arise, in each instance of a peculiar nature. Because they have an identical cause or origin, they set up and affect a similar morbid process. This process differs slightly according to the miasmatic state and the constitution of the individual thus affected. When left to itself, it leads in a moderate time to death or recovery. As exiting causes, we may mention war, natural catastrophes or famine. At other times, they are peculiar acute miasmas, which always occur in the same manner. Therefore, they are known by traditional names. They are again of two kinds:
•    Those that attack a person once in a lifetime such as the childhood diseases and those we can get in adult life.
•    Those that recur frequently in pretty much the same manner. Of the first, we know smallpox, scarlatina, measles etc. The second type consists of cholera, typhoid, dysentery, the plague, yellow fever, etc.

60.    Among chronic diseases, we must reckon also those, which we see quite often and which are iatrogenic in nature. The long continued use of powerful drugs in large or increasing doses gradually derange in such a way that the body performs otherwise abnormal functions. Thus, indurations, relaxation or total destruction of the affected parts; faulty function and structural damage are the outcome, so that the organism is prevented from complete destruction. These results of faulty treatment are further assaulted with other drugs to counteract them.

80.    In chronic diseases, the investigation must include the most minute particulars and the most characteristic details. The lesser accessory symptoms often furnish vital clues to the remedy needed or indicated. The patients, due to their long suffering, regard them as a necessary part of their condition, comparable to health. These symptoms are the key-notes and the guiding symptoms, of which few remedies share them, if any at all.

This should suffice for the attentive reader to impress upon them the necessary thoroughness in taking the case. This post is not meant to give you all the instances, because then i would need to quote practically a 1/3 of the Organon.

The best solution to this conundrum is simply to study the entire Organon.

Hope this has given you sufficient hints on how to study the Organon and to come to the right conclusion.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Kaviraj,

Kaviraj,

HOMOEOPATHY IS MISSION TO CURE AND NOT TO SPECULATE............................bye bye modern GURUS who are unable to demonstrate homoeopathicity in their prescriptions......

 

Let us all read the ORGANON AND MATERIA MEDICA.....AND HONESTLY REPORT THE CASES FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANKIND NOTONLY FOR THE SAKE OF HOMOEOPATHY ALONE....it will never die only speculators will make it look difficult and complicated.....

 

TRUE, HONEST PERSON WILL ALWAYS MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LAWS .....AND CONTRIBUTE LOT......TO WHOLE MANKIND.....THE PATIENTS CURED WILL ALWAYS BE THE BEST TORCHBEARER OF THIS LAW THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE ILLITERATE.....IT IS NOT WE DOCTORS WHO DEFEND THIS LAW IN THIS WORLD BUT THE PERSON WHO WERE CURED......

PLEASE WAKE UP AND WORK DONT WASTE TIME ONLY IN FIGHTING.....BUT ON UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SCIENCE AND ART OF UNDERSTANDING HUMAN FROM NOT ONLY PART BUT AS A WHOLE....SERVING ON THE COMPREHENSIBLE LAW WHICH DOES NOT HARM AND WORK WONDERS......

 

Homoeopathy is not easy and it should become your reflex and reflection.....